Slashdot Mirror

Well, it depends what you mean by profit. I run a business doing taxes for people. I make money off it, but I consider that a salary, not profit.

Wow. I'm glad I'm not one of your customers, because the IRS considers that profit.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,0 0.html

Won't it be a capital expense and still be counted as taxable profit? Gotta love the taxman.

Not necessarily. Up to $100K of capital equipment per year can often just be expensed for a small business. Used to be $25k, but it was just increased to $100k for 2003. This is called the Section 179 Expense Election. Some of the details of the recent changes are here

But of course, it's a tax law, and so there are lots of details to investigate. This overview can even seem misleading about the 100% deduction because it is taken out of context of the entire Section 179 rule. So the actual documents need to be consulted (or even better a tax professional). But the deduction is real, and almost every small business takes advantage of it (it starts to phase out over $400k of capital expenses).

If we dispense with the vouchers and think of it as a change in the laws about what's allowed to call itself a charity. The IRS publishes some guidelines, the official rules aren't so easy to find. Currently you need to be an "organization" (so maybe artists would need to group together) and one of the allowed types is "literary", so this isn't entirely without precedent.

Would people collude with their friends, and declare themselves artists, cheating the system with 5-minute finger-painting exercises done in macaroni and cheese? This kind of thing doesn't happen very much now with ordinary charities. That might mean that the government would insist on some criterion of artistic quality before giving out tax-exempt status. In any event it's an interesting idea.

By introducing a small but steadily rising tax on petrol, America would do far more to encourage innovation and improve energy security than all the drilling in Alaska's wilderness. Crucially, this need not be, and should not be, a matter of raising taxes in the aggregate. The proceeds from a gasoline tax ought to be used to finance cuts in other taxes--this, surely, is the way to present them to a sceptical electorate.

these guys

I got a call from a salesman trying to tell me that you can "eliminate your debt" through an interpretation of the laws.

The problem stems from the fact that no US court actually shares this interpretation. This seems similar to the claims that various defects during ratification make collecting an income tax is illegal. While people would love to believe there's a "secret" way to avoid paying taxes, the IRS does not agree. If you have credit card debt pay your damn bills.

Calling it "tax cuts for the rich" is bogus anyways. As it is, the bottom 50% of income earners only pay 4% of the income tax collected, so it's not like there is much there to give back to them!

The top 1% earn 20.8% of the income and pay 37.4% of the taxes. Giving them back 1 or 2% is hardly cataclysmic. They already pay proportionally FAR more as it is.

You can't give a tax cut to someone who doesn't pay taxes. The people who will benefit the most from a tax cut are those who pay the most in taxes.
Duh.

To be in the top 1% of income earners, BTW, takes "only" $293K a year (as of 2001, anyways). A lot of traditionally left-wing people often make that much - athletes, actors, lawyers, doctors. Not to mention that succesful small business owners will frequently make at least that much as well - even a small restaurant can top $350K a year if their restaurant is reasonably popular.

In terms of politicians, according to Forbes, 6 of the 10 richest politicians in the US are... democrats! Only 3 are republicans. Gee, who's the party of the evil, hated rich?
http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/29/cx_dd_richpols.ht ml

Some other good links that either confirm some of the above or just make for good reading:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,0 0.html
http://taxfoundation.org/SR118.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passList Id=10&passYear=2002&passListType=Person&resultsSta rt=1&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bnu mberfield1%2C%2Bstringfield1&resultsSortCategoryNa me=rank&category1=Country+of+Citizenship&searchPar ameter1=11Str%7C%7CPatCS%7C%7CUnited+States&catego ry2=category&searchParameter2=unset

...then tell TV producers how to advertise? Like, grant ridiculous trademarks, fight wars in the name of peace and use your money doing it?

Seriously, if you don't like what they're doing THEN STOP WATCHING TELEVISION! It boggles my mind that they're so upset over such an insignificant thing as how products are being advertised on television that they're trying to sic government bloodhounds on the people that make the shows that they're needlessly addicted to. I imagine that the people behind this are TV junkies that get fired up over any changes that threaten their little microcosm-of-the-mind. It kinda reminds me of a line from a movie that came out recently:

The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around and what do you see? Businessmen, Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters...the very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so innerred, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will that they will fight to protect it.

You can see how much tax they paid here. It's not quite all of the same people though, since the latest data that the IRS published is from 2000 .

The 10-K filing regulations (see Item 101(c)(1)(xiii)), which is the government filing I assume they are referring to, only says that the narrative description of the company should include "The number of persons employed by the registrant."

To determine whether someone is an employee or independent contractor I assume they would use the IRS guidelines which includes how much specific behavior control the company has over the persons and financial controls such as benefits, unreimbursed employee expenses, etc.

So to answer your question (and yes I am a CPA) the 10-K would not include temps and contract workers because they would not qualify as employees under the IRS guidelines.

There are many Americans working overseas, and they are required to pay federal taxes in additional to local taxes (in contrast to almost every other non-America citizen).

Very simplistically, first $70,000 under the foreign earned income exclusion is exempt from U.S. federal income tax for expatriates. Unlike all other nations except for Libya however, all income beyond that is subject to federal income tax.

But Gates Foundation or no, the linked article is very clear on MS' involvement (and it's non-monetary-- so it works is they give stuff to the school which costs them very little incrementally to produce, then they write off the full retail value on their taxes, essentially making a profit on their tax return).

You forgot to say IANACPA. I'm not either, but I do know that according to the IRS your basis for charitable contributions of inventory (that is property you sell in the course of your business) is the SMALLER of the fair market value or your cost.

If MS donates software that cost them very little to produce then they get very little tax deduction. If the software comes directly from MS then MS is donating millions of dollars worth of software that the school could probably never afford in exchange for very little tax benefit. If the software is coming from the Gates Foundation, then the foundation would have to buy the software from MS and donate it. Since the foundation is tax exempt the deduction wouldn't be an issue. If you like you can check out form Publication 526 from the IRS.

Good advice. Also, the start-a-business help provided by the Internal Revenue Service can be a great source of information.

Try this link and this one for starters.

Good advice. Also, the start-a-business help provided by the Internal Revenue Service can be a great source of information.

Try this link and this one for starters.

Coproprations and rich people pay the vast majority of all taxes in the US.

Sorry, but corporations don't pay that much in taxes. Check out the IRS statistics for example.

This information is really easy to find and it's difficult to argue with plain facts. All corporations, total, pay 1/3 as much in income tax as people pay in FICA and other payroll taxes.

For FY2002, corporate income tax was about $211B. Individuals paid about $1.7 TRILLION total in income and payroll taxes. That makes your claim about corporations paying the vast majority of taxes a pretty specious claim. The rich do pay a large fraction of income tax. But nor corporations. Not even close.

Unless you can come up with some information that proves the IRS doesn't know how to count....

The poor DO pay taxes. Ever heard of FICA? A great many people pay more in payroll taxes than they pay in income taxes. People forget this. Yes, with our current income tax scheme, many of the poor have a negative INCOME tax ... but they still pay payroll taxes. And it's not like the US government separates payroll taxes from income taxes when it comes time to spend the money.

IANAL (or tax expert) but I am an american who has lived outside the US, (UK, and as of next week Israel) And if you are living outside the USA you still have to file a tax return but you get a major tax discount, (the first $70,000 or so is tax free). Even if you are being paid by an american company in american dollars via an american bank. If you look at the IRS web site www.irs.gov you will find some very helpfull information.

Good Luck to you and have a safe trip!

And by 503C, you mean 501(c)(3), I assume.

At least get it right before you post. And moderators...can't you do better?

No text version. NPR often doesn't publish one.

Doesn't that go against Section 508 standards for tax-funded institutions? Like NPR cares about that; they don't let their 501(c)3 status interfere with their journalism.

Let's never mind that this could set a precedent in naming standards, can't we just watch this fscking case end? NS is not responsible, the perpetrator is. Send the award to the federal level, let the Internal Revenue Service hunt him down and levy his check as if it were taxes. If he wants to protest, too bad - he may be out of the country now, but he was in the US then, IIRC, and that is how you base the penalty part.

Yes, exactly. That's why I'm a conservative, but I'm not a republican. I supported the tax cuts, but no one in their right mind believes that tax cuts and increased spending is sound financial policy.

However, if you can describe a system of tax cuts where the people who pay the vast majority of taxes don't benefit, I'd like to hear it.

The fact of the matter is that tax cuts help people who have money because people who don't have money DON'T PAY TAXES. So we hear complaints that tax cuts don't do enough to help the poor - bullshit! More people than ever now come in under the IRS radar - more people than ever are paying NO taxes, these are people who don't make a lot of money - rich people still account for the vast majority of taxes.

The top five percent earners STILL PAY 50% of the tax burden, while nearly 50% of income earners pay NO income tax. Tell me how this does NOT favor the poor in an overwhelming way?

Now, tell me about this $80k cap... I've never heard of it. Income taxes are a percentage, not a fixed dollar amount.

Look here, the very first schedule shows a tax liability of over $90,000 PLUS 35% of anything over $311,950. I don't know where you got this 80k limit, but it's a load of crap. Probably some nutcase left wing socialist-pretending-to-be-democrat website.

The subsidies you spoke of I certainly disagree with, but the tax cuts are fair because they help the people PAYING TAXES. There is NO cap, and the wealthiest people STILL pay the lion's share of taxes. That the tax cuts don't help the poor is simply a knee jerk reaction from the far left who will not agree with any policy that a non-democratic office implements. BTW, I'm comfortably in the middle class, and am greatly looking forward to my tax cut. It's amazing how people making less than me manage to drive BMW's while I drive a 10 year old civic, and have surround sound audio/video systems while my big accomplishment is a stereo TV.

Oh - I know why. It's because some people put money away for retirement, for example, and some people don't. It's because some people invest that money, and some people don't. So when I start reaping the rewards of my careful planning, you'd have the government come and take it all away, because it's not "fair" that I should have so much.

And calling tax cuts an entitlement is absolutely absurd. Remember, the government is not giving the rich people anything, but they ARE giving poor people money for nothing. I'm not going to argue that's a bad thing, it's completely besides the point. I'm asking you to keep in mind that wealthy people get NOTHING, they are simply having less money forcefully (under threat of imprisonment) taken away. But if you want to call being able to keep more of your money an "entitlement" or "greedy" then the discussion is over.

AOL/Time Warner now gets to write off the contribution because it's to a non-profit organization.

Not all not-for-profits are deductible. They have to register with the IRS and meet certain criteria(warning PDF file).

If you honestly think 5 billion would make it through the socialist beaurocracy down to the people who actually need it and accomplish anything useful, you haven't paid attention to the last few decades of social programs in the US. Throwing money at a problem does not solve it. Finding the root causes of the problem (collapse of the family, failed education system, lack of personal accountability, etc, etc, etc) and fixing those leads to a problem.
Lack of social funding? 28% of the Federal Government's budget is spent on social programs look for yourself. 18% on social programs and 10% on community development (the same thing).
Meanwhile only 18% is spent on national defense...
God, I can't believe I spent so much energy on an AC troll...

OK, we'll go through it step by step for you, and I'll even use different examples since you seem to have something against Mr. Wadsworth from Ohio, and Mr. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvania. I'll even use short examples that even your feeble brain MIGHT be able to comprehend.

On October 1, 2002, Edward Bruce Baker of Altamonte Springs, Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time. During 1994, Baker received gross income of approximately $231,339 and in 1995 received approximately $281,824. For both of these years, Baker failed to file returns. Baker was found guilty by a Jury on July 22, 2002.

That is the entirety of the section devoted to Mr. Baker of Florida. No Fraud. No Laundering. Only failing to file income taxes, twice. One year in PRISON for each time he failed to file federal income taxes. Let me put it this way. Fail to file for 1 year = 1 year in prison.

On November 20, 2002, in the Eastern District of Texas, Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996 and 1997 tax returns. According to the Indictment filed on December 4, 2001, Brooks was a self-employed with his principal place of business in Jacksonville, Cherokee County, Texas.

That again, is the entirety of his section. No Fraud. No laundering. No murder, rape, pillaging, or other idiocy. He was found guilty of "failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns" and got "21 months in prison". An average of 7 months per year for not filing. Again, failing to file for 1 year = 7 months in prison.

On March 21, 2002, Dr. Joseph Fanfan, Jr., pled guilty to failing to file federal income tax returns for 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. According to the indictment charged on October 11, 2001, Dr. Fanfan earned gross income of approximately $150,956, $199,306, $221,005 and $266,452 in 1994-1997, respectively. Dr. Fanfan was sentenced on July 26, 2002, receiving 60 months probation.

60 months probation isn't prison, but it's one step away from it. 4 years of failing to file = 60 months probation.

On April 29, 2002, in Little Rock, Arkansas, Ernest Clyde Swisher, a Missouri attorney, was sentenced to 36 months in federal prison for failing to file federal income tax returns for 1995, 1996 and 1997. Swisher received nearly $1.4 million in the three year period.

In January 2002, a jury deliberated approximately one hour after four days of trial. During the trial, Swisher and his attorney argued numerous "tax-protest" defenses, including that there was no statutory requirement to file income taxes. During the sentencing hearing, the Judge expressed that it is important that the public recognize the failure of "tax-protester" arguments and that the maximum sentence that he imposed should reflect as much.

Just so you don't lose count, that's 36 months for failing to file for 3 years. Once again, 1 year of failing to file = 1 year in prison.


Maybe you'd be interested in this page. I summarise (it's a graph, few words for reading):

Fiscal Year 2003 (9 months) as of 6/30/2003
Prosecution Recommendations: 223
Indictments / Informations: 160
Convictions: 172
Incarceration Rate (may include prison time, halfway house, home confinement, or a combination thereof): 82.6%
Avg. Months to Serve in Prison: 45
Avg. Months to Serve (all sentences): 43

Fiscal Year 2002
Prosecution Recommendations: 269
Indictments / Informations: 233
Convictions: 227
Incarceration Rate (may include prison time, halfway house, home confinement, or a combination thereof): 88.1%
Avg. Months to Serve in Prison: 45
Avg. Months to Serve (all sentences): 49

Fiscal Year 2001
Prosecution Recommendations: 244
Indictments / Informations:

I actually checked many of those examples you linked to. Almost without exception they dealt with people who had consciously defrauded the government by hiding assets, etc. I'll state it again, there is a difference between not paying your taxes and filing false information.

You are lying. Those were DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE IRS, ON THE IRS.GOV WEBSITE. Not only that, the page title is "Significant Case Summaries: Nonfiler Enforcement". That doesn't say "Signicant Case Summaries: Fraud Enforcement". That page is here. Either you're lying, or you can't read. You want me to print the entire list?
Well suck it up. You owe it. I know you don't want to owe it. Neither the government, nor I care.

Quote from the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 4: Clause 4: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. The 16th Amendment changed that to allow for a "graduated" income tax, that is CLEARLY UN-Constitutional. You obviously do NOT know what you're talking about because you give no examples, no evidence, and no intelligent points to discuss and argue in a civil manner. I gave you multiple examples from the IRS dictating their powers, by way of specific cases with dates, names, and time sentenced, and you say the equivalent of "nuh uh!".

The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.

At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:

William F. Wadsworth of Ohio failed to file federal income tax for 1995, 1996, and 1997. He was sentenced to a number of things, including "three years probation, with the first six months in home confinement with electronic monitoring".

Karl F. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvaniv was convicted by a jury to 30 months in prison for "willful failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, and making false statements in loan or credit applications".

Here's a good one that just happened in October of 2002... "Edward Bruce Baker of Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time."

Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns.

"On October 3, 2002, Gregory Bruce Zolman of Lake Ann, Michigan, was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by 12 months supervised release. Zolman was arrested without incident on April 23, 2002, following a Grand Jury indictment on four counts of willfully failing to file a 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal tax return."

Samuel F. DuPont, of Georgetown, Maryland, was sentenced on September 27, 2002, to twelve months in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading guilty last June on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

On September 16, 2002, Paul Soyk, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a CPA who also has a Master of Taxation degree, was sentenced to five-months in prison, followed by five-months home confinement and two-years supervised release. Soyk was earlier convicted after a three-day trial on four counts of tax evasion for the years 1996 through 1999.

Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.

The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.

At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:

William F. Wadsworth of Ohio failed to file federal income tax for 1995, 1996, and 1997. He was sentenced to a number of things, including "three years probation, with the first six months in home confinement with electronic monitoring".

Karl F. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvaniv was convicted by a jury to 30 months in prison for "willful failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, and making false statements in loan or credit applications".

Here's a good one that just happened in October of 2002... "Edward Bruce Baker of Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time."

Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns.

"On October 3, 2002, Gregory Bruce Zolman of Lake Ann, Michigan, was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by 12 months supervised release. Zolman was arrested without incident on April 23, 2002, following a Grand Jury indictment on four counts of willfully failing to file a 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal tax return."

Samuel F. DuPont, of Georgetown, Maryland, was sentenced on September 27, 2002, to twelve months in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading guilty last June on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

On September 16, 2002, Paul Soyk, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a CPA who also has a Master of Taxation degree, was sentenced to five-months in prison, followed by five-months home confinement and two-years supervised release. Soyk was earlier convicted after a three-day trial on four counts of tax evasion for the years 1996 through 1999.

Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.

The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.

At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:

William F. Wadsworth of Ohio failed to file federal income tax for 1995, 1996, and 1997. He was sentenced to a number of things, including "three years probation, with the first six months in home confinement with electronic monitoring".

Karl F. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvaniv was convicted by a jury to 30 months in prison for "willful failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, and making false statements in loan or credit applications".

Here's a good one that just happened in October of 2002... "Edward Bruce Baker of Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time."

Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns.

"On October 3, 2002, Gregory Bruce Zolman of Lake Ann, Michigan, was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by 12 months supervised release. Zolman was arrested without incident on April 23, 2002, following a Grand Jury indictment on four counts of willfully failing to file a 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal tax return."

Samuel F. DuPont, of Georgetown, Maryland, was sentenced on September 27, 2002, to twelve months in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading guilty last June on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

On September 16, 2002, Paul Soyk, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a CPA who also has a Master of Taxation degree, was sentenced to five-months in prison, followed by five-months home confinement and two-years supervised release. Soyk was earlier convicted after a three-day trial on four counts of tax evasion for the years 1996 through 1999.

Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.

The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.

At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:

William F. Wadsworth of Ohio failed to file federal income tax for 1995, 1996, and 1997. He was sentenced to a number of things, including "three years probation, with the first six months in home confinement with electronic monitoring".

Karl F. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvaniv was convicted by a jury to 30 months in prison for "willful failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, and making false statements in loan or credit applications".

Here's a good one that just happened in October of 2002... "Edward Bruce Baker of Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time."

Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns.

"On October 3, 2002, Gregory Bruce Zolman of Lake Ann, Michigan, was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by 12 months supervised release. Zolman was arrested without incident on April 23, 2002, following a Grand Jury indictment on four counts of willfully failing to file a 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal tax return."

Samuel F. DuPont, of Georgetown, Maryland, was sentenced on September 27, 2002, to twelve months in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading guilty last June on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

On September 16, 2002, Paul Soyk, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a CPA who also has a Master of Taxation degree, was sentenced to five-months in prison, followed by five-months home confinement and two-years supervised release. Soyk was earlier convicted after a three-day trial on four counts of tax evasion for the years 1996 through 1999.

Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.

The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.

At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:

William F. Wadsworth of Ohio failed to file federal income tax for 1995, 1996, and 1997. He was sentenced to a number of things, including "three years probation, with the first six months in home confinement with electronic monitoring".

Karl F. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvaniv was convicted by a jury to 30 months in prison for "willful failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, and making false statements in loan or credit applications".

Here's a good one that just happened in October of 2002... "Edward Bruce Baker of Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time."

Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns.

"On October 3, 2002, Gregory Bruce Zolman of Lake Ann, Michigan, was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by 12 months supervised release. Zolman was arrested without incident on April 23, 2002, following a Grand Jury indictment on four counts of willfully failing to file a 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal tax return."

Samuel F. DuPont, of Georgetown, Maryland, was sentenced on September 27, 2002, to twelve months in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading guilty last June on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

On September 16, 2002, Paul Soyk, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a CPA who also has a Master of Taxation degree, was sentenced to five-months in prison, followed by five-months home confinement and two-years supervised release. Soyk was earlier convicted after a three-day trial on four counts of tax evasion for the years 1996 through 1999.

Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.

The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.

At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:

William F. Wadsworth of Ohio failed to file federal income tax for 1995, 1996, and 1997. He was sentenced to a number of things, including "three years probation, with the first six months in home confinement with electronic monitoring".

Karl F. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvaniv was convicted by a jury to 30 months in prison for "willful failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, and making false statements in loan or credit applications".

Here's a good one that just happened in October of 2002... "Edward Bruce Baker of Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time."

Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns.

"On October 3, 2002, Gregory Bruce Zolman of Lake Ann, Michigan, was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by 12 months supervised release. Zolman was arrested without incident on April 23, 2002, following a Grand Jury indictment on four counts of willfully failing to file a 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal tax return."

Samuel F. DuPont, of Georgetown, Maryland, was sentenced on September 27, 2002, to twelve months in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading guilty last June on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

On September 16, 2002, Paul Soyk, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a CPA who also has a Master of Taxation degree, was sentenced to five-months in prison, followed by five-months home confinement and two-years supervised release. Soyk was earlier convicted after a three-day trial on four counts of tax evasion for the years 1996 through 1999.

Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.

The only example you can think of is Al Capone? I think that tells us something. Also please note that they went after Capone for tax evasion because they were unable to try him for murder. Also keep in mind that Capone deliberately falsified his financial documents. There is a big difference between not paying your taxes and committing a felony to hide how much money you make and where it comes from.

At least I named an example. You didn't even do that. You just gave a statement, and offered no supporting evidence. However, you asked for more examples, so here they are:

William F. Wadsworth of Ohio failed to file federal income tax for 1995, 1996, and 1997. He was sentenced to a number of things, including "three years probation, with the first six months in home confinement with electronic monitoring".

Karl F. Kleinpaste of Pennsylvaniv was convicted by a jury to 30 months in prison for "willful failure to file income tax returns, income tax evasion, and making false statements in loan or credit applications".

Here's a good one that just happened in October of 2002... "Edward Bruce Baker of Florida was sentenced to 24 months in prison on two counts of failure to file federal income tax returns and was remanded to the custody of the Marshals at that time."

Barry Eugene Brooks was sentenced to 21 months in prison after a jury found him guilty of failing to file his 1995, 1996, and 1997 tax returns.

"On October 3, 2002, Gregory Bruce Zolman of Lake Ann, Michigan, was sentenced to 12 months in prison followed by 12 months supervised release. Zolman was arrested without incident on April 23, 2002, following a Grand Jury indictment on four counts of willfully failing to file a 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 federal tax return."

Samuel F. DuPont, of Georgetown, Maryland, was sentenced on September 27, 2002, to twelve months in prison and one year of supervised release after pleading guilty last June on two counts of willfully failing to file income tax returns.

On September 16, 2002, Paul Soyk, of Sterling Heights, Michigan, a CPA who also has a Master of Taxation degree, was sentenced to five-months in prison, followed by five-months home confinement and two-years supervised release. Soyk was earlier convicted after a three-day trial on four counts of tax evasion for the years 1996 through 1999.

Are you noticing a trend here? I'm only half-way down THE FIRST PAGE, and I'm not going to continue because I'm tired of typing all this.

You've completely and utterly missed the point.

No, you have missed the point. I earn my money, and I own it until I deem it necessary to part with it. The government is taking something by threat of force that I earned, and belongs to me. If I did that, I'd be put in jail.

Thank God I live in the U.S. where the tax laws are marginally less unfair and opressive.

Actually, I don't see tax figures on the link you provided.

It's 12 rows down under the heading of "Tax receipts as a % of GDP".

That's 48% on someone making only $28,000 to $68,000.

You are ignoring several factors that reduce that overall rate. You pay no income taxes on the first few thousand that you make each year (depends on your deductions). You pay a lower tax rate than 25% on income earned up to 28k. Most people also qualify for a bunch of other deductions (mortgage interest, educational expenses, children, etc). An individual who earned just 28k would actually wind up paying a rate that is more like 10-12%. Many states have no income tax, or a lower income tax than 7%. Sales taxes in the US are also much lower than in the EU region.

In many EU countriesd the maginal rate that kicks in at around the average income level (i.e. comparable to the 25% rate in the US) is around 40-50%. Sales taxs are usually around 10-15%. Some countries have social security taxes on top of that.

In 2001, the average tax burdon as a % of income for all tax returns was 16.1%. Here are some examples to see how that breaks down:

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I'm having a hard time making complete sense of that document.

One thing I did notice is that footnote 1 says that "The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million." I might have a spurious comma, the text was pretty small. :P

That means that those 5,714 returns averaged (assuming my math is correct) $17,605.88 in tax each, which is an alternative minimum tax. I'm interested how much money you have to pick up before your minimum tax is almost eighteen grand. Of course, 5,714 returns is not a very large number out of the some 300 million people in the U S of A. Moving on, the IRS will tell you "New IRS Report Shows Income and Taxes Surged in 2000; Alternative Minimum Tax Jumped". An interesting document High-Income Tax Returns for 2000 (PDF) has this interesting paragraph within it:

Overall, a large portion of high-income taxpayers were subject to tax on a large share of their incomes and, consequently, reported very substantial amounts of tax. (60.2 percent had taxable income equal to 80 percent or more of expanded income; and 96.9 percent had taxable income equal to 50 percent or more of expanded income.)

Or, read backwards (assuming I'm even reading it correctly forwards), nearly 40% of taxpayers whose adjusted income is over $200,000 completely avoided taxes on some 20% of their income. Around 3.1% of them avoided paying taxes on 50% of their actual income. Paying 30% on 50% of your income, for example, means you're paying only 15% on your income, right? The same document also shows that the primary reason for reduced income tax liability is Tax-exempt interest, accounting for 52.5% of the returns counted.

Incidentally, the top 400 tax returns averaged a tax rate of 22.29 percent. So I guess I really am full of shit. Carry on. However, based on figures I dredged up above, I do maintain that there's something to what I say, it just doesn't work as strongly as I thought it did. I guess I'll retire in shame, like I did on the Bose issue. :P

In 2001, the average tax burdon as a % of income for all tax returns was 16.1%. Here are some examples to see how that breaks down:

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I'm having a hard time making complete sense of that document.

One thing I did notice is that footnote 1 says that "The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million." I might have a spurious comma, the text was pretty small. :P

That means that those 5,714 returns averaged (assuming my math is correct) $17,605.88 in tax each, which is an alternative minimum tax. I'm interested how much money you have to pick up before your minimum tax is almost eighteen grand. Of course, 5,714 returns is not a very large number out of the some 300 million people in the U S of A. Moving on, the IRS will tell you "New IRS Report Shows Income and Taxes Surged in 2000; Alternative Minimum Tax Jumped". An interesting document High-Income Tax Returns for 2000 (PDF) has this interesting paragraph within it:

Overall, a large portion of high-income taxpayers were subject to tax on a large share of their incomes and, consequently, reported very substantial amounts of tax. (60.2 percent had taxable income equal to 80 percent or more of expanded income; and 96.9 percent had taxable income equal to 50 percent or more of expanded income.)

Or, read backwards (assuming I'm even reading it correctly forwards), nearly 40% of taxpayers whose adjusted income is over $200,000 completely avoided taxes on some 20% of their income. Around 3.1% of them avoided paying taxes on 50% of their actual income. Paying 30% on 50% of your income, for example, means you're paying only 15% on your income, right? The same document also shows that the primary reason for reduced income tax liability is Tax-exempt interest, accounting for 52.5% of the returns counted.

Incidentally, the top 400 tax returns averaged a tax rate of 22.29 percent. So I guess I really am full of shit. Carry on. However, based on figures I dredged up above, I do maintain that there's something to what I say, it just doesn't work as strongly as I thought it did. I guess I'll retire in shame, like I did on the Bose issue. :P

In 2001, the average tax burdon as a % of income for all tax returns was 16.1%. Here are some examples to see how that breaks down:

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but I'm having a hard time making complete sense of that document.

One thing I did notice is that footnote 1 says that "The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million." I might have a spurious comma, the text was pretty small. :P

That means that those 5,714 returns averaged (assuming my math is correct) $17,605.88 in tax each, which is an alternative minimum tax. I'm interested how much money you have to pick up before your minimum tax is almost eighteen grand. Of course, 5,714 returns is not a very large number out of the some 300 million people in the U S of A. Moving on, the IRS will tell you "New IRS Report Shows Income and Taxes Surged in 2000; Alternative Minimum Tax Jumped". An interesting document High-Income Tax Returns for 2000 (PDF) has this interesting paragraph within it:

Overall, a large portion of high-income taxpayers were subject to tax on a large share of their incomes and, consequently, reported very substantial amounts of tax. (60.2 percent had taxable income equal to 80 percent or more of expanded income; and 96.9 percent had taxable income equal to 50 percent or more of expanded income.)

Or, read backwards (assuming I'm even reading it correctly forwards), nearly 40% of taxpayers whose adjusted income is over $200,000 completely avoided taxes on some 20% of their income. Around 3.1% of them avoided paying taxes on 50% of their actual income. Paying 30% on 50% of your income, for example, means you're paying only 15% on your income, right? The same document also shows that the primary reason for reduced income tax liability is Tax-exempt interest, accounting for 52.5% of the returns counted.

Incidentally, the top 400 tax returns averaged a tax rate of 22.29 percent. So I guess I really am full of shit. Carry on. However, based on figures I dredged up above, I do maintain that there's something to what I say, it just doesn't work as strongly as I thought it did. I guess I'll retire in shame, like I did on the Bose issue. :P

When you have more money to spend you can find more tax loopholes, so you pay less tax per dollar earned.

You are talking out of your ass. Lets look at the real numbers, ok?

In 2001, the average tax burdon as a % of income for all tax returns was 16.1%. Here are some examples to see how that breaks down:

- People that made between $19k-$22k/year paid 7.6% in taxes
- People that made between $40k-$50k/year paid 10% in taxes
- People that made between $100k-$200k/year paid 17.3% in taxes
- People that made between $1.0M-$1.5M/year paid 29.2% in taxes

What do you know- the more money you make, the higher your tax burdon is. In fact, the richest 1% of taxpayers account for about 20% of all income, but they pay over 37% of all income taxes in this country (Source).

In fact, most people who make really excessive amounts of money per year pay less taxes per dollar than those in lower tax brackets as a result.

Wrong. The highest income group (people that made over $10M in 2001) paid about 25.4%. Compare that with the 2.0% paid by the lowest income level.

The next time Daschle is on TV whining about the "tax cuts for the rich", keep these numbers in mind...

For a more specific entertainment niche, I got to Setlist.com for (duh) setlist information.

The best geography/government site: the CIA World Factbook. I'm not sure how the CIA landed that responsibility but it's very well done.

And, of course, for Americans the IRS forms site is a must.

Actually it is probably pretty close to $20,000.00. He used the F word. Family.
If you look at the table you will see that for Married filing jointly, the first $14,000.00 is tax free. If this couple can take more than the standard deduction and/or has a child or children, they can easily be tax free at $20,000.00.

"The share of all individual income taxes paid by the highest-income 1 percent of households was 36 percent in 1998."

"the top 5 percent of households pay 56 percent"

"In 2001, 36 percent of U.S. households, most earning less than $40,000, had income tax liabilities of zero"

Yes that's right, 36% of households pay NO income tax!!!

Would you like their tax rate to be below 0%? For many of them it is, in the form of the EITC.

What are you talking about?

The HIGHER half of the population makes over $26,000 per year.
The LOWER half makes LESS than $26,000 per year.

The HIGHER half pays 96% of the taxes.
The LOWER half pays 4% of the taxes.

The HIGHER half makes 87% of the money.
The LOWER half makes 13% of the money.

Look at the IRS data, you don't have to believe me.

I don't care where you live. The fact is that 50% of the working population make under $26,000 per year. It's the truth. If you don't believe me, LOOK IT UP.

I did pay for it after all 8:(

Overall, the experience was positive. We used different services, but both services had the usual wizard-like walkthrough, error-checking, etc.. And we both got our refunds in short order.

I'm now recommending online filing to everyone who asks. It can be significantly less expensive (depending on the service) and you don't have to deal with the DRM issues.

Amazon could be profitable any time Jeff wanted it to be. The rules say that a company must show a profit at least once every "n" years, and when they show a profit, they end up paying taxes on it.

Please provide a citation. Theres no such rule in the United States.

Try the following paragraph from IRS Publication 535 Business Expenses.

Presumption of profit. An activity is presumed carried on for profit if it produced a profit in at least 3 of the last 5 tax years, including the current year. Activities that consist primarily of breeding, training, showing, or racing horses are presumed carried on for profit if they produced a profit in at least 2 of the last 7 tax years, including the current year. The activity must be substantially the same for each year within this period. You have a profit when the gross income from an activity is more than the deductions for it.

Wind under Thy Wings

I can understand this for a startup company, as long as the company quickly moves to start covering the costs of its labor. But in the case of a wealthy organization, this means that the wealthy organization just *chooses* not to give economic justice. More for me, nothing for you.

I have been seeing this more and more, and it is part of what ails America. It comes from the move to give more to the investors, and comes from the blinds that are provided by corporate coverage, in which the investors can't see the plight of their workers.

But let me point out the results of economic injustice: if there is economic injustice, then the victim's investments remain unpaid, and in that case, it does not pay for the victim to invest!

In the case of inventors who can't afford to patent and defend their inventions, because the patent system only benefits wealthy corporations, the proper response is to not devote effort to inventing.

In the case where your compensation is not based upon justice, it does not pay to invest in an education that will make you a more valuable employee.

In the case where businesses are taxed to death, so that other businesses can recieve lucrative government contracts, it does not pay to start a business and help the economy: it pays to work your own garden instead.

In the case where individuals are taxed to death, to pay for more tax collectors, the farmer's strategy doesn't pay -- only the highway robber's strategy pays. If you want to see what this is like, look at Congo/Zaire.

If you think it is getting bad, and the problem is the government, then tell the government. If you don't think they'll listen, then it's better to leave, and find a better place.

Here's How.

If you think it is getting bad, and the problem is the people (yeah, they're all good people, they just, well, you can depend on them to do really evil things), then it's doubly important to find a better group of people.

Here's a hint.

If worst comes to worst, duck, cover the ones you love as well as possible, stay out of the way of wars as much as possible, and try to live with as much justice and charity as possible.

But the bible is absolutely right: when we choose to withhold a man's wages, we commit violence. When we choose economic theft as a regular diet, we commit murder. And we recreate our world to become a horror. Our spiritual failings definitely bring physical problems and death.

Just my two cents. That's all.

The military gets such a large chunk of the federal budget (49% IIRC, but don't quote me on it)

It's nowhere near 49%. In 2003, the DoD accounted for 16.9% of federal outlays, 10.6% of net public spending, and just 3.5% of gross domestic product. In 2001, the government spent 3x more on welfare, Social Security, etc. than it did on defense (54% vs. 18%).

Ignore the flippant posts about "nobody will ever know", there are licensing and tax laws and even though the odds of being caught are low, the consequences can be bad enough that it's not worth taking a chance.

1) The direct answer to your question, go down to your city hall, find the zoning department, and ask. Typical residential zoning restrictions have to do with the size of the sign marking your location, parking, foot traffic, animals, children, noise, outbuildings, security lighting, storage of hazardous materials and so on. IOW it's pretty likely you'll find out that none of the restrictions apply to your business and you're 100% in the clear. (I assume that if you're a homeowner in an HOA that you read the convenants before you bought!)

2) Now find the business license department and go ask them what kind of license you need. I have done this in 3 separate locations and each had different requirements: first location no license needed, second location license required with fee based on 1/10% of gross income, third location license required with $15 annual fee (initially, now they've eliminated that charge). If a license is required, it generally requires filling out a simple form.

3) Make sure your county doesn't have its own separate licensing requirements.

4) Check state requirements. Many states have all the information online. In others you can order a booklet titled something like "Starting a Small Business in ....". At a minimum if you make up a "company" name to use in correspondence and advertising rather than just using your own legal name, you'll have to file a "trade name" or "alias" registration with the state so that there's an official record that "Suckus Maximus Software" is actually you--so that people can find you if they want to sue you. In my experience this costs in the range of $5-$20 per year. You probably won't have deal with workman's comp, but you should find out.

5) Go to the IRS site, get these publications and read them: 334 Tax Guide for Small Business, 535 Business Expenses, 583 Starting a Business and Keeping Records. Then keep the records and do it right--you really don't want to screw with the IRS!

6) Check the titles at Nolo Press; they have great info available and it's often a more clear than the government publications.

7) Don't forget the bits about business plan, budget, setting rates, finding customers, getting insurance (property, liability, health, disability), actually doing a good job, and so on. Always remember, cash flow above all else is what will determine whether you make it or not.

For the non-US poster who asked about "zoning": this refers to the local laws governing what you can and cannot do on your property. A city is typically composed of "zones" which are each rated in some category, things like "Residential Low Density", "Residential Medium Density", "Residential High Density", "Retail and Office", "Light Industrial", "Heavy Industrial", "Agricultural". So for instance it's pretty certain that if the poster lives in a building where it's actually legal for someone to reside, then it would be illegal for him to operate a petroleum refinery in his yard. Most residential zoning restrictions don't apply at all to a software developer hiding in his basement. Also, FYI, zoning is not immutable; there is generally a government body in charge of reviewing requests for changes in zoning, or exceptions to the rules--this is how farms are able to become shopping malls.

You are mistaken. According to the IRS (who should know), in 2001 individual income tax accounted for over $1 trillion in revenue. Corporate income taxes accounted for less than $200 billion.

On the off chance that you aren't an idiot or a troll and might actually be willing to learn something, try this FAQ. It goes to great lengths, more than these anti-tax bozos deserve, to explain just how our tinfoil-hat-wearing nutjob brethren have been misled. For even more good info, try this link, this link and this link.

And if you want it straight from the horses mouth, the be-all and end-all summary page explaining why these tax resistor folks are barking up the wrong tree, try this link.